Search on A Photo Editor

New Getty Contract Met With Apathy

The new Getty contract finally arrived and while there’s nothing outlandish in the new terms, there seems to be a continual slow creep towards selling images for whatever price they would like. Long ago Getty bought into the long tail business model, which means it’s easier to own 10 million images that sell for a dollar than 10 images that sell for one million dollars. For contributors this means, “we are removing the ability for contributors to opt out of images moving from RM to RF” and “Getty Images would be able to include RF content in subscription products.”

A reader wrote and told me that “none of the photographer advocates seems to think this is worth fighting” and “few contributors have responded on the contributors site [for] fear of retribution from Getty.

I have been told by many people that the pricing has been in a downward spiral for a long time now with things like the Premium Access subscription model that companies like NBC use to get images super cheap where photographers will see $0.35 sales and any sales coming out of China will be less than $5. One rumor I heard recently was that photographers were seeing Worldwide Advertising going for $100/year. This is all just the long tail hard at work collecting money for the bottom line.

I know I’m beating a dead horse with this post and most photographers have soured on Getty and stock photography many, many years ago but some wanted to discuss so I thought I’d put it out there.

We took our image libraries out of Getty when they revised their contract 3 years ago, cutting the rate of photographers’ payments from 50% to 40%. We moved over to Gallery Stock. I don’t see any point in fighting Getty – just don’t sign the contract, and find a company that has better terms for photographers. It may be the first place that buyers go now to look for images, but it wont continue to be if contributors leave in droves.

Jon

@Jose R. Molina, I don’t have that many images with them (although I’ve been there many yrs), but I won’t re-sign. Sales are down and there are other agencies worth looking at, or just sell your own images. The best thing for the photography business generally is everyone to just quit Getty

There really isn’t a great alternative to stock these days when agencies are willing to use advanced amateur photography that has been snapped up by the likes of Getty. If photographers consider the strategies that Rob referenced they we do have some control of the availability of images for stock.

There needs to be an education push that is highly publicized and directed toward those who are giving it away. It may seem unachievable but it can be if there are steps taken to do so.

It is a shame that Getty is following the greed strategy versus 80/20 rule. They may win now but it won’t last.

Dana

I am working on my own stock site which someday I hope will be able to put in place of Getty (Jim Erickson and Andy Anderson have already found success with their images so I know it can be done). But until I have a large enough collection, I need someone to hawk my images.

I have been with almost all of the stock agencies and have cut ties with all of them except Getty. They either did little to no marketing and therefore had very little traffic which obviously means little sales for you. Getty does a ton of marketing. It is the first stop for many art directors purely by default. Other agencies were licensing images for so little (I submit all my images as Rights Managed) that they were going for less than Royalty Free. I had one agency license an image for $8.60 which was out of market so by the time the check got to me it was about $3. Others would take many months just to upload my submissions to their site. All bad business practices. It’s no wonder they go out of business or Getty and Corbis buys up their assets.

Rarely does Getty license my images for less than $500 and most of them are usually licensed between $1000-$2000. Last month they licensed a whopper for $25,000. I figure 40% of any of those numbers is better than either nothing or the petty numbers I was getting from the other agencies. Getty has high overhead and probably like many big corporations a lot of it could be cut but that’s the way business goes. I’m sure that’s what drives them to continually cut photographer’s rates as they are a business and at the end of the day need show a profit of some sort.

I’m not so stoked on the prospect of images being moved from RM to RF. It could just be an ego thing. But if an image never sells in RM then maybe it belongs in RF. I’ll just have to suck it up. Also, the new contract lets you split with Getty with 90 days notice. So if things go really south, it will be really easy to pack up.

MIchael Mogg

My contract expires in two years but I am not going to sign the new contract. The relationship with Getty has been a one ride on a downhill slope for many years. It is time to remove myself from their race to the bottom of the barrel.

boozoo

Like the evil record labels….Drive these fuckers into the ground..who needs them.
I am syndicated with Corbis and they sell images all the time for 50 bucks..100 bucks …I sell nothing for under 500…and always seem to get that price or more…they simply don’t care..it’s quantity to them…that said i’m not a “stock photographer” ….

boozoo

@boozoo, I’m afraid it would take a lot more than that–even if all photographers stopped syndicating with them, don’t they still have a great number of images that they own? I’d love to see Getty bite the dust, but I don’t see how that’s going to happen.

An alternative to Getty or traditional agencies is Evostock. Using Photoshelter’s Virtual Agency tool, members of Evostock can upload to their Photoshelter account then submit images to Evostock. A cooperative effort, Evostock provides a single place for clients to look for work as opposed to having to remember and work with individual photographers when researching imagery.

From Evostock’s page, Evostock.org and Evostock.com:

Stock Photography by Professionals.

Evostock is an online collective of highly creative professional photographers and visual artists providing clients one place to search across a large edited collection of high quality stock imagery.

To find the images you need please use the keyword search in the upper right of this page or browse the artists galleries.

Customers interested in receiving updates regarding Evostock please email to info@evostock.org. Also follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

@Shannon Fagan, how long does it take to be approved by the moderators? I joined a few hours ago, and it says my membership is still pending. I can be patient- but thought I’d check since you said it all took only a few minutes. Since I am a potential new “Getty artist” I’m very interested in reading the exchange on ASMP’s forum as well. Thanks for posting the link.

n

I’ve been with Getty since the Tony Stone days. I am also with Corbis and am talking with another agency.

One alternative and it takes a lot of work to make it profitable is to go your own route – there are two excellent options available to photographers who desire to license their images direct to the client. they are Photoshelter and PhotoDeck. (http://www.photoshelter.com + http://www.photodeck.com)

I have my a little piece of the pie with aerialstock. and I am trying to make it grow. I have several friends that license stock directly with portals build around specialties.

C

Fighting Getty is futile. I was a long time member of SAA and served on the board for 3 years so I know a bit about Getty. In stock, the only thing that will move the situation toward the better side for photographers is if enough of us refuse to work with Getty AND, at the same time, we go out and create new alternatives that actually work for us and better OUR situation and prospects for the future.

Three years ago, after fifteen years in traditional stock production and marketing through the big agencies, the only way I could see forward for me as a stock photographer was to eliminate the middle man and collaborate in a collective fashion with my colleagues to create a new business model dedicated to the long term sustainability of professional stock image production and marketing.

I wrote a 15 page vision plan for it which can be found at http://www.evostock.org (I’ll apologize for it’s wordiness in advance). Evostock is nearing 2 years in existence now and we have nearly 80 member photographers and a steadily growing collection of images edited by member volunteers. Creation of the marketing entity will be starting soon and that will be funded by very modest member dues.

The key to success of any alternative to the big traditional agencies is a large number of contributing members. To create collections that can compete with the likes of Getty (say in 3-6 years) you need a lot of committed artists. So far, in my estimation artists have not been up to that test but I’m keeping hope alive with Evostock.

professional artists need to stop complaining about Getty and Corbis and do something else. Getty and Corbis certainly will not do it for you. That has been proven time after time. We are very powerful as a group and good clients will always follow the good talent but we have to collectively walk away from Getty and stop allowing them to hoodwink us into continuing in a business model now set up primarily to benefit them to the detriment of ourselves and our careers.

You can also read a bit about Evostock in the past ASMP Spring Bulletin

Justin

Just a suggestion – I went to look at the evostock website, and the first thing that jumped out was that design-wise, it seems very basic, almost like it needs a fresh overhaul to bring it up to date, including the logo. Also, after a search, the images shown had titles displayed like 1.02093.tif, instead of real titles, and no other data in the thumb box. If I was a buyer, I would probably move on because it didn’t seem ‘pro’ enough.

@Justin, I agree. If Evostock or other collectives like it are going to succeed the professionalism of photographers must be kicked up a few notches otherwise we will be stuck with those who will name and keyword our images for us and take most of the revenue from our work because we are lazy. It is up to photographers and other visual artists to step up to the plate and make it happen and get that corresponding pay off.

The other key ingredient to Evostock success is cooperation from Photoshelter itself. It started the idea of the Virtual Agency, which is a great idea but they have seemingly stopped developing it’s capabilities with regard to site design, SEO, and things like advanced searches, and ease of use for customers (especially with the shopping cart and check out).

If we had, say 1000-2000 members in Evostock paying monthly dues it would be conceivable that we could create our own technology platform in a year or two but for now a basic site on Photoshelter costs $10/mo and given the risk involved in stock licensing these days there is not much tolerance for higher overhead costs.

Cheers to you for leading the charge for a better future for you and your industry!!

On another note, 12 hotlinks? I have been in the communications business for over 30 years and your signal to noise ratio is very high. Have a clear message, one link and sell it. You even admit that your 15 page vision plan is wordy. A page, maybe a paragraph is all it should be.

@Thomas Hawk, I’ve heard it can better your SEO to provide these hotlinks when chatting on forums and the such. Normally I’d have just the Evostock signature or just the Tim McGuire Images signature not both. Depends on what capacity I’m operating in. I take all online advice from complete strangers with a grain of salt.

From a business perspective it was sad to see the two large entities suck the value out of the imagery. (And the photographers signed up by the thousands to participate, as if it was a privilege.) Andy and Jim have it right. Raise the bar and sell the value. Let everything else be on Corbis or Getty because the model is not sustainable.

Every time one of the big guns does something that effects the photographers, usually in a negative way, everybody starts complaining, but will never do anything about it!

Understand one thing people, for as long as you keep providing the likes of Getty with your work they will be reaping the rewards and you, the artist, will be shafted more and more as time goes on. No amount of whining on forums will change that. The only way you will ever change it will be to STOP providing your work to these agencies.

Tim McGuire from Evostock seems to have the right idea. Unfortunately most people would rather just whine and complain but never actually do anything about it so I doubt he or his business model will ever be able to put a dent in Getty etal, although I hope he does.

I stopped and pulled all of my images from all agencies over a year ago as I got really fed up with pathetic penny sales. On one agency I got a $5 bonus for signing up with them which is more than I got out of 15 sales in one week!

I only sell direct now and I find my own clients. I rarely ever put any of my work on any of my websites so they can’t be stolen and I don’t get those shite emails from the agencies asking if I would like to sign up as they have seen my work. The only place I might use now and again is Photographers Direct if there is a request that I have suitable images that meet the brief. Then if the client wants my work I agree a price with them direct.

Nobody tells me that they have just sold one of my images with worldwide rights for 100 years for 5 bucks anymore and anybody who thinks that it’s ok to put up with that in the hope that their agency will look after them in the long run is a fool.

Bottom line……. stop whining and do something about it or shut up and put up with it!

Leaving Getty also

I think Rob is doing all of us in the industry a big favor by writing this new contract up. As much as you may dislike the conversation Alan, there are many newbies in the field who may have never come across this situation and need to be informed.

I think it is an important conversation and I know that I am not signing the contract. My decision came after reading this post and comments, talking with my producer and seeing two friends that I respect a great deal, write in this very discussion that they are walking away from Getty.

When you see heavy weight shooters like Richard Hamilton Smith, Michael Prince, Andy Anderson and William Huber weighing in on the discussion, than it is a worthwhile read. I know who they are and I appreciate that they took the time to speak openly about their decision to leave Getty.

@Leaving Getty also, It’s not that I dislike the conversation, I agree Rob is doing all a favor. It’s the fact that most people will sit in places like this and complain about the whole industry and how they are getting shafted by xyz but will never ever do anything about it.

I appreciate that newbies may not know what is going on but I bet you that the same old faces have come out complaining because Getty has changed something that does an injustice to the artist.

As I said previously, as an individual artist, do something about your own situation, whether that is go it alone or join forces with others it’s up to you, but don’t get wrapped up in whinging in online forums and blogs, you may get some great advice but you may also get some bulls**t too and that just might make you go the wrong way.

Make up your own minds based on FACTS and figures not what people tell you about how bad or well they are doing, that’s them not you! Only you know how well or bad you are doing in your own business, the stock cash cow is dead, when it comes to the likes of Getty et al, pay your respects and get on with your business.

Leaving Getty

As I stated, I made up my mind after conversations with my producer, rep and two of the people who wrote in this very forum that they were leaving Getty. Plus I reviewed my current agreement with Getty. The slow wind down on profits and the new contract solidified my decision..

My return via Corbis is three times that of Getty with a third of the images in their system. (I joined Corbis less than two years ago – I’ve been with Getty since the late nineties.)

I could care less about internet blowhards and their opinions. I do trust the opinions of friends who I respect and are very talented photographers/businessman. Two of them participated in this discussion and they brought great insight to it.

@Leaving Getty, So what is your point? You have just echoed what I have said all along, you have found out the facts and made your own mind up. You seem as though you have taken my comments personally?

Getty No More

Well said Alan Chung! I did leave Getty just two weeks ago and I am launching a new stock site of my own very soon. I am ready to market the hell out of it. Unique images deserve the moon and the stars.

Maybe the value moving forward is only to be found combining quality images with exclusive rights. In my world, clients are not interested in images that someone else might use and the agencies that can offer true exclusivity charge a fair (translate – significant) price – so if you can offer exclusive rights to quality images to high-end clients, you can still reap the benefits of stock. The key to this model, however, is to strictly control the licensing of your work and not to let the value be diluted by high-volume low cost sales. I have created my own stock site, which was laborious for sure, but have not marketed it. When we have sales, they are usually well worth it. We also have images with Getty (since they were Stone), Corbis, GlassHouse and Uppercut and those agencies combined net less annually than the handfull of direct sales we make each year – so, I say, concentrate efforts on retaining rights and targeting high-end clients. In many ways, I wish that I had not listed the work I have with those agencies. Several years ago it was a different story – Getty was one of my favorite words.

john mcd.

I walked away when after bought Tony Stone and cut percentages and took a sign it or get lost approach. I didn’t want to do business with the kind of people I was talking to from Getty who struck me as self-important, a little too slick, not really interested in photography or photographers and not especially trustworthy when compared to Tony Stone and his staff. Tony Stone was Neiman Marcus. Getty has become Woolworth’s. I’ve never put up with bullies and have never regretted my decision to cut them out of the picture. When you’re willing to stand up and say no and live with the consequences you have the power.

The biggest mistake Tony Stone photographers and others ever made was to sign the contract, thereby launching Getty on its attempt to take over the entire stock photograph industry.

What did Jonathan Klein say at the big meeting he gave to introduce photographers to the Getty Agency shortly after it bought Tony Stone? That in the past too much attention had been paid to photographers–in effect, that in the future Getty’s focus would be on its marketing/the making of money. Not an exceptional statement if a fair proportion of the income had been shared with those who created the images.

Getty, and its ilk, have gutted the stock photography industry as far as many photographers are concerned.

Gone are the days when the directors of stock agencies cared for their contributing photographers. I remember one of Tony Stone’s annual parties when a photographer walked up to him with tears in his eyes: “Tony, you have saved my career.”

Like Tim McGuire, I was once an SAA board member. I finally got so fed up hearing members gripe about Getty, and felt so bad about what Getty had done to photographers, that I posted a message to SAA asking if it wasn ‘t time that photographers started an agency of their own,
and so in 2006 Picade was borne. We now have 54 carefully selected members from 9 countries. The agency is owned in its entirety by its contributing photographers , all of whom have a vote in its proceedings. Picade pays a royalty of 55% for stock, 75% for assignments,
and a share of year-end profits. We can do this because we have no investors or banks to pay.
Working with our own money, it has taken us a long time to build our files to the point that we could seriously be in business and acquire an excellent sale manager. Kathie Woods, for 9 years sales manager for MIRA, joined us in September 2010 and in the past 6 weeks has filled requests from a wide range of buyers, supplying them with 2600 images for their consideration.
Picade does not and will not work with royalty free or microstock. Further to this, earnings from sub agents so far engaged enable us to remit 50% of the original buyers payment to our owner-members.

Picade is now on the move but we need more excellent owner-members photographers, and if we are to keep Kathie really busy, very many more images

@Brian Seed, It’s new businesses like Picade, Evostock, and others that photographers should be supporting with their work. If those new artist friendly business models received the support they need, they could grow incredibly fast. In the age of the internet huge businesses can emerge from nowhere in a few years.

The idea of Evostock is completely “open source”. If someone can do it better than I am I’m all for it and will support it. I’d like to see a whole network of “Evostock-like” collectives. It can only be good for professional artists.

john mcd.

@Brian Seed, Well said, and well done. The first contract was their test to see what they could get away with and it was, unfortunately, successful. They thought they were going to be getting a bigger share of the same kind of money Tony was getting. Instead they were so smart they destroyed the value of what they were selling in a blind rush to kill competition and dominate the market. Their other big goal was to keep increasing the percentage of wholly-owned content so as to decrease and eventually eliminate royalties paid. Searches were programmed to show wholly-owned content first. They generated wholly-owned content that was similar to stuff in the archive that was not wholly owned and then pushed it. A hell of a business model.

>>It’s new businesses like Picade, Evostock, and others that photographers
>>should be supporting with their work.

Name a stock photography “cooperative” that has thrived, no, how about “lasted” more than 10 years. Maybe a few, or none. They don’t seem to work AFAICT.

Yes, Getty contributors exiting en masse might begin demise of Getty, but reality for many Getty shooters: some $$ is better than none AKA financial ruin. The possible solution for those who WISH they could fully pull out: get large number of varied salable images in multiple nonexclusive agencies that bring in some acceptable percentage of their Getty $$ & then transfer ALL their Getty images to other agencies…?

In reply,Jeff,the sad truth is that photographers have often been their own worst enemy. They flocked to Getty, although on some occasions the agencies to which they belonged were purchased by Getty. Our agency, Picade, offers photographers the friendliest, most proactive, and best financial deal around, but are photographers flocking to us?

When you say that most or all photography cooperatives have tended to fail, has Corbis yet made a profit? Is Getty revamping its already egregious contract for something much worse out of greed, or in a tough economy are they not meeting their shareholders requirements? Before I founded Picade I took a hard look at where stock photo agencies had failed or failed their contributing photographers, including lavish expenditure of their start-up cash, their indebtedness to investors, the miserable royalties paid, particularly when sub agents were used, and the marketing of royalty free images, and wrote these possibilities out of our operating plan.

So is Picade now going to be a guaranteed success? We have an amazing board and adjuncts to the board, with a wide range of excellent skills over and above their photography. I couldn’t be more proud of the way this dedicated board has worked, unpaid, and through thick and thin, but what happens if Saudi Arabia joins the turmoil of much of the rest of the Middle East and gas becomes $10 a gallon, or the American economy shuts down because of the wrangling in Washington? And, I am not discussing what is to happen to stock photography. Does anyone have an excellent, totally dependable crystal ball to lend me?

At the end of the day, we photographers have always led a somewhat dangerous existence. My first wife would get into a panic when she saw me sitting at home for months without any work. Then came a very lucrative 4 month assignment that sorted out our finances for the year. Those were the days, the days before stock photography got truly underway giving photographers another way of earning money. The truth is, photography as a career has never been a sinecure. We need to grasp the nettle, be adventurous, take the risks, otherwise we won’t survive. Picade has grown steadily over the past 5 years. With all of its ducks in a row and an excellent sales manager, it has now reached the tipping point. Success beckons. It will be further assured if more excellent photographers join us: we need more images.

Only stock “co-op” that lasted & generated acceptable $$ for its members was Galen Rowell’s Mountain Light AFAIK. I wish all new co-op & ageny start-ups the best — am not sure how they can insulate their pricing from Getty pricing? Yes these newbies might make occasional 4 or 5-figure sales but Getty is MarketMaker until its demise, IMO.

My screen for selecting agencies or co-ops to join is simple:
1. they already make significant $$ for some of their contributors ($10K+ net/yr is my definition)
2. subjects they sell includes what I can supply in volume & variety
3. they offer no less than 50/50

Anyone who sells images through Getty (or any subsidiary thereof) is a fool (or a really bad photographer). I was part of the focus group who contributed with Getty before they struck an strategic relationship with Flickr. I was also the first person who Getty ever broke a contract with via the Flickr relationship.

I won’t get into details because I fear a legal backlash, but I can tell you that I feel they were very disingenuous. Dealing directly with clients who contact me via Flickr or my web site has been quite handsome indeed.

I haven’t had time to read the new Getty contract yet, but will give it the serious attention it deserves. I license more images, for more money, direct from my office than I do through three ‘agencies’ and haven’t submitted fresh work to the agencies for many months.

Developing a client-direct business model takes time, and requires a lot of time on an on-going basis. My stock customers are primarily editorial: gardening books and magazines. I spent most of today putting together a preview gallery in response to a two-page single-spaced wantlist. The next list for the same project arrived in my in-box this evening.

I arrived at Getty through an acquisition chain: Botanica purchased by Picture Arts purchased by Jupiter purchased by Getty. Until the last step it was a 50/50 split. I’ve long resisted RF, with only a handful at Getty from a submission last year.

If anyone new to the business thinks going it on your own is easy, keep your eyes wide open. It’s a tough business and getting tougher.

I diversified by moving toward the portrait market two years ago. I have more pricing power there, but like any business finding the right clients is always a challenge. At least I get to deal with smiling people when I deliver big framed portraits to display in their homes.

Aunt Bee

So from what I understand about the new contract is that RM images that have not been sold in 3 years will automatically be converted to RF with no input or say from the photographers..

My question would be,what if I had a successful RM image that was licensed many times for nice money,then I submitted it to Getty and it sat for 3 years for no sales..I have a feeling I’d be pretty pissed and running for the door if the image was converted to RF. Also,what if you agreed with your subject that the image would not be used for sensitive issues / WIth RF,the customer could do whatever they want with the image.

I am not a Getty photog-I was thinking about joining but by what I am reading,it appears this agency is racing to the bottom and it is not worth my time to work for pennies. How many of these tiny sales wil it take to buy or upgrade your equipment ?

Hi All
We have a current Getty contract but cannot sign without an opt out from RF. We have been marketing our own images since we started in business. We benefitted from Tony Stone but found they were not as good at marketing specialist images and so we only allowed them to keep master dupes which have sold well even through Getty. What we found with TSI were very good sales outside the obvious industry we target. We have not sent Getty any new images. We have few invested and don’t regret keeping images for direct sales but we do miss exposure in new markets.

I have read Tim and Brian (hello both long time no speak) and applaud their attempts to create alternatives. At the time of their respective launches i was advocating that photographers needed a way to manage rights control between various agencies if you want to make a good living with RM stock. I don’t think most people understood what i was advocating.

I still very much hold that opinion. To give you an example if i placed my images with Tim at Evostock AND Brian at Picade i would need a central area to view any sales or restrictions in real time. Now that should work if various agencies agree to manage rights this way. Otherwise they are simply not managed IMO.

Such a scheme would immediately open up the creation of new alternatives and give the best photographers a better chance to find more buyers for their images.

Getty Images make sales because they have market penetration and for managed rights they have a global rights database. Photographers need their own databases which agencies agree to keep updated if they make sales. We are all global but we are divided and they rule. We just need to glue to bring us together.

It just needs that simple idea to work to turn it round IMHO

all the best
Pete Dean
agripicture.com

n

As someone said before, let your opinion be know. If you are a contributor it would be great if you could voice your concerns on the Getty contributor site. They are listening, so it is important to make your concerns heard. The more contributors do it, the better the chance at a fair contract.
Getty just amended the new contract, they are listening, make yourself heard!

Sad situation but good discussion. I’m not active submitting with Getty for some time now but still get royalties – sometimes good ones. Could not figure why I got an immediate contract offer – but now thinking its because they have some of my images they probably want to move to RF – ouch!

… As if the last contract I signed with them didn’t suck enough!
I’m hearing some other agency names and am interested, but do they get traffic???
All my friends that buy images (if not directly from photogs) go to Getty. Ahhhh.
Thanks for any suggestions.

An alternative is clearly needed to the all-powerful corporate bodies which control the stock market. The problem is however, that well-intentioned people setting up small co-operatives won’t be able to compete with the strengths of the giants – that ability to be the one-stop default shop for the time-constrained buyer. This buyer wants good search engines, lots of choice of high quality content and consistent quality. Getty provides this.

The ONLY way that a new default, no-brainer, option can be provided to the buyer is by everyone getting together en masse. Otherwise it’ll just be splinter groups and no-one will get anywhere. But, how on earth do hundreds of disillusioned photographers achieve this when they have no real hub?

This will require full-time staff etc. to manage, edit and keyword and therefore a hierarchy. This hierarchy could then take too much control and we have another Getty on our hands. So, what I propose is a content-edited general agency (creative, not news-wire) which has ELECTED directors. This way, the photographers, not the shareholders call the shots. Only a few people are salaried (the elected directors and the technical staff) and so costs are limited – hence the royalty rates are 60%+ to the photographer. Sort of like Alamy, but with elected, accountable directors and content editing.

As our previous statements explained, APA is deeply concerned with the contract changes that Getty Images recently imposed on its contributors. These changes threaten to erode contributing artists’ fundamental rights to control their creative works, a trend that is all the more concerning given Getty Images’ efforts to emphasize Premium Access sales and its recent acquisition of PicScout.

APA also is extremely troubled by the manner in which Getty Images forced these changes on its contributors, including the baseless “deadline” that Getty Images manufactured in a transparent attempt to scare contributors into agreeing to these changes without proper consideration. APA made clear to Getty Images that we disapprove of these strong-arm tactics and that we would not sit idly by while it, yet again, attempted to leverage its position in the industry to force contributors to relinquish even more control over their creative works.

Unfortunately, despite efforts from APA and numerous other industry organizations, Getty Images refused to extend its self-imposed deadline and was willing to accept only marginal revisions to its proposed changes. Getty Images’ response was insufficient and its handling of this matter has been unacceptable.

While we will continue to attempt to engage Getty Images in a direct dialogue, APA is diligently exploring every possible avenue available to us to address these concerns. Although we cannot provide specific details at this time, rest assured that APA will continue to advocate vigorously on behalf of our members and stock photography professionals generally.

Lester Taylor

But surely all contributing photographers have been benefiting from the aggressive stance taken by Getty over copyright infringement?

As soon as they suspect infringement they send the person concerned a huge invoice (just Google – Getty Image Claims). Something you must surely applaud as they are pro-actively doing something that you could never do yourselves? They are protecting your interests and filling your pockets with missing money – Yes?

So they must be making a lot of money which they are passing on to you in accordance with your contract? So why the complaints?